Weekend reflections

Weekend Reflections is on again. Please comment on any topic of interest (civilised discussion and no coarse language, please). Feel free to put in contributions more lengthy than for the Monday Message Board or standard comments.

PrQ, what do you think of Melbourne Uni’s plan to require students to undertake a generalist degree before specialising in their chosen field? Apparently such a system is the norm in America and the EU countries may be heading down the same track.

QUOTE: Wouldnâ€™t it be best to stash little gold bars ,under the house

RESPONSE: Maybe if your expecting political or economic collapse and you want to be prepared for the time afterwards. However if that is your concern then you would probably be better of living somewhere remote and buying a lot of ammunition.

Besides it does not matter much what you or I think. Lots of people already obviously think that doing business using e-gold is a worthwhile activity.

Free the Benno one? It reminds me of an apocryphal graffito (is that a word?) written under a sign asserting “Bill Stickers Will Be Prosecuted”: “Bill Stickers is innocent”. Interstingly, it was a self regarding statement too.

Anyone see the story about the poor Sap – born in France from Serb parents, came to Oz when 2 years old is now 36 something, spent all his life except from 0-2 in Oz, ex drug addict convicted of burglary or something, expelled by the Grim Reaper Ruddock as personna non- grata …back to………..SERBIA! Where he’s starving to death.

Sorry about that Benno. I wasn’t sure if the comment was genuine, a provocation or a spoof of your identity, and it was too late at night for me to spend a lot of time thinking on it. If it was intended as a provocation, I suggest you post it on your blog and add a link here.

I was thinking about posting something reflective about my experiences, as a ‘mature-aged’ student, of Australian Higher Education in 2005. I find myself, thus far, however, too enervated by the horrific bureaucrat-driven dumbed-down process I’ve endured for a semester.

Terje,
The price of gold is obviously going through the roof. Enough people believe that it is better to have that, than a currency. Just amazed that people are prepared to hand it over to a ‘trustworthy’ organisation, on line. Maybe, a lot of people are voting with their feet and have little trust with government management of their economy.
Also,regards…….

Another reflection of the weekend variety. How come the north of our country has become a very larger bombing range, without very much consideration? As far as i can gather B-52s will arrive from Guam and drop a ‘payload’, close to Katherine and then return home.
Suspect ,Senator Hill, is thrilled that the media radar, is largly turned off. See….http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1510211.htm

RESPONSE: In US dollar terms it is. However that is more a reflection on the US dollar coming out of deflationary territory a few years ago and now entering inflationary territory. The fact that it’s the dollar changing value rather than gold is reflected by the price of commodities across the board. Take a look at oil.

joe2, the bombing runs by the US air force are preparation for them taking over the regional bombing role that our F-111s currently provide. Practice attacks on Northern Territory targets are proxies for attacks on areas to our near north, intended to familiarise crews with flights into our region from their Guam base.

This is a consequence of our government’s decision to opt for a budget air force next decade, retiring the F-111 and replacing it with the lightweight fighter, the F-35. That move deprives Australia of a strategic deterrent capability.

US aircraft undertaking these runs will include B1-Bs as well as B-52s, and possibly some B2 stealth planes.

We are also likely to see US squadrons of their air superiority fighter, the F-22, start exercising out of Tindal and Darwin starting around 2008. This is because the Howard government’s air force cost cutting will leave us out-gunned in air defence in the next decade, and thus dependent on the US.

This article from The Economist casts a quite surprising light on the EU economy. Conventional wisdom (inclduing much from The Ecopnomist itself) has it that the EU economy is grossly inefficient and that its high unemployment is due to high taxes and labor market rigidity.

The article calls both claims into question:

The euro area’s unemployment rate has fallen by more than expected in recent months, from 8.8% in April to 8.4% in September.

Unemployment:

“Several countries’ jobless figures may be distorted by special employment measures and changes in rules for claiming benefits, but surveys point to an improvement in underlying conditions. This is the result of various labour-market reforms as well as a cyclical upturn. Though labour markets remain stiff, they are not as rigid as they were. Indeed, the unemployment figures may understate the overall gains: employment has risen by far more than unemployment has fallen as reforms have dragged previously discouraged workers back into the labour market.

Spain has enjoyed the fastest expansion in jobs, 4% a year since 2000. And Italian employment has risen by an annual average of 1.4% in the past six years. This partly reflects the emergence of workers from the black economy into the official realm, but some of the increase is real, thanks to new, more flexible types of job contract. Italy’s jobless rate, almost 12% in 1998, is now 7.7%. Germany is the only big euro-zone country whose unemployment rate has not fallen in the past decade.”

Growth:

“Although America has outpaced Europe this year, over the past five years GDP per head, the best single measure of economic performance, grew at an average rate of 1.4% in the euro area, just behind America’s 1.5%. Ah, but America is better at creating jobs, isn’t it? Actually, no. Employment has grown a tad faster in the euro area than in America whether one looks at the past five years or the past tenâ€”a striking improvement on the decade to the mid-1990s (see chart).”

So Europe’s high unemployment is at least partiallyattributable to an increased participation rate. A number of Euroepan countries have sought to reform their pension schemes in recent years to cut costs and discourage early retirement. It would be ironic if these reforms have actually had the effect of increasing unemployment by increasing the participation rate of older workers.

Similarly, much of the difference in the rate of economic growth between the US and the EU is attributable simply to the faster growth in te US population. (Of course, one reason people more people choose to migrate to the US may be because of the lower unemployment there.)

A further question which this comparison raises is, if immigration is a major driver of US economic growth, what proportion of that is attributable to illegal immigration and what would the impact on the US economy be of a concerted crack-down on illegal immigration?

Speaking about unemployment in Europe, are there any widely accepted “real” unemployment comparisons across countries, which take into account underemployment and ridiculous government criteria ?

I’ve always wondered what the real unemployment rates would be like if you included all the hidden unemployed people. Would Australia have a compartively high rate or do other countries have equally as ridiculous classification schemes, such that if you are on a disability pension but want to work, or work 2 hours a week (or whatever it is now), you are not considered unemployed ?

Thanks for the apology/explanation JQ, I didn’t really think that you took it down because you are anti-free speech. Your reasons for removing it were eminently sensible, regardless of the time of day or how much time you can induldge filtering comments.

It wasn’t a provocation because I know that that sort of provocation gets no oxygen on this blog, it was instead my honest opinion. But that sort of honest opinion does belong on my own blog and not someone elses.

BTW the point you made about identity spoofs is quite amusing as 99% of readers of comments don’t believe that they know the commentator personally anyway. So it’s up to the hosts discretion about databasies of IP addresses and known behaivours.

Promoting or inciting discontent, you know, that abstract noun which may lead to a party losing power in a democracy.

Are you absolutely sure that you not generally a fan of sedition? On this definition no ones actions/thoughts/beliefs/words should be judged as per whether they are seditious or not, but upon other criteria. Blah blah Gahndi blah blah Nelson Mandela.

These laws may pertain only to the field of terrorists and terrorism, ie. you won’t be jailed for inciting discontent with the full sale of Telstra. But points of order stand I believe.

Orang: Why should we feel sorry for someone who lived here 30 years but never bothered to take out citizenship, and was a drug addict and burglar to boot? Sounds to me like he’s a victim of his own stupidity.

Australia should not be a safe house for the criminally idiotic, no matter how long they’ve lived here.

I am not generally a fan of sedition when the said sedition involves the incitement of violence towards the government or government officials. I am not always and forever against violent rebellion however I do find myself offended by your assertion that the IR laws warrant an assasination (even though I would not ban your right to make such an offensive assertion).

Following these IR law reforms we will have democratic elections during which there will be ample opportunity for people to express their dissatisfaction (through the ballot box) with Australias laws and/or its government. To suggest that an assasination is now necessary seems quite extreme.

Being fined several days wages for one day of strike. Being fined for striking at all, making striking illegal. Criminalising the right to protest by stealth. And then there is the police violence.

And if the majority of Australians except this at le ballot bocs, they are terrorising the minority who don’t. The minority should then take up arms. So you are correct in the timing of when to take up arms, after the next election. But Beazley, while repealing the IR laws will go even stronger on the so called anti-terrorism laws. So either way Australians will probably vote yes in a referendum to terrorise an as yet unidentified minority.

Violence offends me too, it offends me very much. But I can always say “They started it first”.

QUOTE: And if the majority of Australians except this at le ballot bocs, they are terrorising the minority who donâ€™t.

RESPONSE: This is a problem with democracy (and all forms of government) across the board. So what then are the alternatives? If you wish to overthrow the government you had best have an alternative system in mind.

Personally I find my current marginal tax rate (~80%) to be an act of terrorism perpetrated by the majority. I certainly did not accept this at le ballot box. Taxation was amoung the primary causes of the Eureka rebellion so I would have history on my side if I decided to lead a workers revolution. However I don’t think assasinations are in order.

In terms of alternate systems the best I can envisage is one call minimal government. Traditionally called Laissez Faire.

Regards,
Terje.

P.S. In the first quote I believe you mean “accept” not “except”. They have quite different meanings.

Terje says: “In terms of alternate systems the best I can envisage is one call minimal government. Traditionally called Laissez Faire.”

Maybe you should read a little about Dickensian England, which came as close to Laissez Faire as you can get. It wasn’t that pleasant actually. Alternatively you could venture to Somalia, which is effectively Laissez Faire. Libertarian types babble about the evils of government power but without it other forces like corporations and criminal syndicates will always fill the vacuum. Libertarianism, like Marxism, might look nice in picture books but it is unworkable in practice. Be careful what you wish for. Cheers.

According to a report about the contents of an alleged leaked transcript of an April 2004 conversation between George W. Bush and Tony Blair, Bush wanted to bomb the al Jazeera headquarters in Qatar, a member of the Coalition of the Willing.

Allegedly, Blair dissuaded Bush, pointing out the diplomatic difficulties that may arise.

David Keogh faces prosecution under the Official Secret Act for divulging this information to a BLP parliamentary candidate.

But:

1. Blair denies the existence of the transcript, and, by implication any mention of the subject of bombing al Jazeera in the conversation in question.

2. Lord Goldsmith, British Attorney-General, admitted in a radio interview that he used back channels to attempt to dissuade the British press from mentioning the alleged transcripts or their supposed subject matter.

Thus, David Keogh, who has been described as both a “junior foreign office official” and a senior operative for MI6, is in a rather odd situation.

For David Keogh is being prosecuted for divulging a non-existent document on the subject of a conversation that never took place, about which the British Government, ever-earnest in its desire that the British press does not make fools of themselves, wants no more public discussion.

Just as Bush and Blair plead sincerity as a defence for their mistakes about the existence of Saddam’s WMDs, so does the British Director of Public Prosecution wish to use David Keogh’s sincerity to make the case that he divulged actual state secrets.

Cynicism seems to be a far more successful survival strategy than sincerity. Perhaps this is one of those things that changed forever after 9/11.

Whilst they may not strictly be welfare I think they are a perverse aspect of the tax system. They are phased out at 30% as income rises. Add this to the conventional top marginal tax rate and the outcome is a painful 80% marginal rate. For ever extra dollar I earn I get to keep 20 cents. I am hardly in poverty but I have cut back to four days work each week due to the lousy terms of trade.

Terje,
In some cases it is difficult to imagine how it could have got worse – starting with Mao (about 70m dead), Hitler (10 to 12m in the death camps, over 30m in the war), Stalin (various esimates, outside the war which he did not start, say 20m). The power vacuum left by their deaths may have been worse than the actuality of their power, but it is difficult to conclude that it would have been worse.

That said, I still oppose the death penalty’s use for any crime – I think in the case of someone like Mao to have him rot in prison for the term of his natural life would have been a worse punishment than a quick death on the scaffold.